The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions and debates than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.

First and foremost, I want to extend my sincerest gratitude to Scott for allowing us to use the one on one thread to be the forum with which this debate is to be conducted. I also wish to thank Spiral Out, who has afforded me his time and the privilege of debating him on a matter central to economic and to a very large extent, political philosophy. Lastly, I want to thank everyone reading this debate. For anyone who expresses interest in what types of economic and political ideologies drive their respective nations, is someone who gives me hope for the intellectual and philosophical future of our species. With that addressed, let us begin.

Capitalism is a system that promotes expropriation, destroys community, and commits acts of dehumanization against the working class who takes part in it through exploitation. What made me see the atrocities of Capitalism were reports I had read regarding foreign supply chains of certain major companies such as Apple. I had written a detailed essay on the subject which I converted into an audio commentary. I fortunately saved the written version and will now share with you my findings.

I want to begin with excerpts from a worker's day at the FoxConn company in China. Apple oversees Foxconn for they supply Apple with motherboards. Back in November of 2010 the Shenzhen factory of Foxconn saw eighteen suicide attempts of which fourteen were successful. These suicides were attributed to labor abuse and poor working conditions all around. What's worse, factories in places like Chengdu & Chongqing are said to be on par with labor camps. With the Chengdu factory requiring workers to sign a pledge that they would not commit suicide and that if they did, their families could not pursue financial restitution beyond the legal minimum. Furthermore, the legal limit for overtime is thirty-six hours a month, workers at Foxconn regularly put in 80 to 100 hours of overtime. Though the Apple Supplier Code of Conduct claims that workers must work voluntarily and within safe working conditions as well as be treated with respect, it was said by one worker during this period that those who do not partake in this overtime are penalized by not being able to undertake overtime during off-season months when their living expenses are the most critical. I will now share an excerpt from the article discussing the findings from a report by SACOM. I will then conclude my discussion of this particular piece by sharing quotes from the workers in the Foxconn factory. Here were the findings from SACOM:

An average day for a Foxconn worker begins at 6:45 AM, when the workers wake and begin to line up for the half-hour long bus ride to the factory. Each bus is crammed with 70 people, all of whom must stand the entire way to work. Once they get there, they work for three hours until lunch, after which they work for another five hours, break for dinner, and then work again for two more hours. In continuous shifts, workers must skip a meal, and reduce the length of the other from an hour to half an hour. Workers accused of slacking, or otherwise failing to fulfill their duty, are forced to write a confession letter to their supervisor, or, if the mistake is especially large, read the letter out in front of all their co-workers in a scene of public humiliation, the report says. One worker was made to stand in the corner of the factory with his hands behind his body for giggling and talking with a co-worker. When the day is over, they crowd back into the buses to stand all the way back to the dorms. The report describes extremely poor health conditions at the factory, with sick leave difficult to obtain. Chemicals used in assembly are often harmful, but workers are not told about the possible dangers. One woman, whose job it was to remove extra glue from iPad cases, developed a red rash on her legs, arms and face from using industrial alcohol to complete her task. In another department at the factory, aluminum dust fills the air, covering their hands, clothes, and faces. Even when workers are off, the restrictive living conditions provide no relief from work. Workers, who have to pay for both food and housing, live in crowded rooms that each sleep up to 24, and are not permitted to use hairdryers or electric kettles. Workers interviewed by SACOM say the food provided by Foxconn is close to inedible. Though workers are paid 1,300 CNY, about half of what living wage would be in the area, they are often underpaid due to common miscalculations in wages and missing pay slips. Foxconn workers tell SACOM that the complaints are often met with silence or inaction.

At the heart of this travesty and others which I will reference throughout the debate, is one of the tenets of Capitalist ideology. What I speak of is the act of privatization as well as the very existence of private property. I am against private property for this reason which I shall share from my essay:

I said the fallacies the Capitalist commits are that they impose their will upon land through privatization and take an object with no definitive teleological design and ascribe one to it thus occluding all other teleological designs and consequently, all other avenues of maximal utility the land was capable of producing. The teleological design the Capitalist imposes upon the land is the manufacturing of material goods which is seen to have achieved maximal utility when such goods reap a profit for the Capitalist. However, to achieve this end the Capitalist must also enforce this relationship between Teleology and Utility upon the worker. Like land, human beings have no definitive teleological design and thus are capable of many forms of maximal utility. The Capitalist however through the institution of wages and having control of the means of production, ascribes one definitive teleological design to the worker and that is to produce labor. The labor is at its maximal utility when it attains the output desired by the Capitalist. When we examine the consequences of teleological reasoning by the Capitalist within an economic context, we can see that what Marx said in his Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts is true. The capitalist does not care for the human being outside of his labor and affords him no moral consideration outside of this dimension. The worker sacrifices their mind and their body in the pursuit of capital. This pursuit often ends in death, starvation, or the worker being plummeted to the depths of beggary.

Now that I have briefly touched upon why I am against Capitalism as an economic philosophy. let me now explain why I support Anarcho-Socialism.

Firstly, because Anarcho-Socialism is historically successful. The Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 which saw a coup perpetrated by Francisco Franco halted by the working class. According to Libcom.org

The war lasted for three years and ended with Franco's victory, aided by fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. The revolution saw huge swathes of Spanish industry and agriculture socialised and run collectively by the workers and peasants.

The fascists launched a coup on July 17th 1936. The initial step was taken when Franco seized Morocco and issued a "radical manifesto". This was picked up by a loyal radio operator who passed it on to the Minister for the Navy. The news of the coup was kept secret until 7pm on the 18th while they tried to come to terms with the fascists. The cabinet resigned on the 18th and Borrios, a right wing republican, was made prime minister.

The coup was only smashed by the activity of the working class. The fascists made some headway in parts of the country but in Catalonia, and especially Barcelona, the CNT (Anarcho-Syndicalist union) showed how to fight. They declared a general strike and took to the streets looking for arms which the government refused to give them. In the end they stormed the barracks, and took what they needed.

The workers immediately set up barricades and within hours the rising had been defeated. Arms were seized and given to workers who were dispatched to other areas to prevent risings. Madrid was also saved because of the heroism and initiative of the workers. Hearing of what had happened in Barcelona they had stormed the main army base in the city.

The action of the rank and file saved the Spanish Republic. Not just the CNT but the UGT (Socialist union) and POUM (Anti-Stalinist Communists) joined in the fighting. For these workers this was not just a war to defeat the fascists but the beginning of revolution. Workers' militias were established. Workplaces were taken over and in peasants seized the land.

Continuing my references of this article, I will provide two excerpts of post-revolutionary Spain when Anarchism was put into action.

Collectivisation of the land was extensive. Close on two thirds of all land in the Republican zone was taken over. In all between five and seven million peasants were involved. The major areas were Aragon where there were 450 collectives, the Levant (the area around Valencia) with 900 collectives and Castille (the area surrounding Madrid) with 300 collectives.

Collectivisation was voluntary and thus different from the forced ‘collectivisation’ in Russia. Usually a meeting was called and all present would agree to pool together whatever land, tools and animals they had. The land was divided into rational units and groups of workers were assigned to work them. Each group had its delegate who represented their views at meetings. A management committee was also elected and was responsible for the overall running of the collective. Each collective held regular general meetings of all its participants.

If you didn't want to join the collective you were given some land but only as much as you could work yourself. Not only production was affected, distribution was on the basis of what people needed. In many areas money was abolished. If there were shortages rationing would be introduced to ensure that everyone got their fair share.

Production greatly increased. Technicians and agronomists helped the peasants to make better use of the land. Scientific methods were introduced and in some areas yields increased by as much as 50%. Food was handed over to the supply committees who looked after distribution in the urban areas.

However, slander was also thrown at the collectives. It was claimed that each only looked after itself. This was rubbish as in many areas equalisation funds were set up to redistribute wealth. Machinery and expertise were shifted to areas most in need. One indicator of the solidarity is the fact that 1,000 collectivists from the advanced Levant moved to Castille to help out.

Federations of collectives were established, the most successful being in Aragon. In June 1937 a plenum of Regional Federations of Peasants was held. Its aim was the formation of a national federation "for the co-ordination and extension of the collectivist movement and also to ensure an equitable distribution of the produce of the land, not only between the collectives but for the whole country". Unfortunately many collectives were smashed by the Stalinists before this could be done.

The collectivists also had a deep commitment to education and many children received an education for the first time. The methods of Francisco Ferrer, the world famous anarchist educationalist, were employed. Children were given basic literacy and inquisitive skills were encouraged.

Now to examine post-revolutionary Spain in the realm of industry:

"railways, traincars and buses, taxicabs and shipping, electric light and power companies, gasworks and waterworks, engineering and automobile assembly plants, mines and cement works, textile mills and paper factories, electrical and chemical concerns, glass bottle factories and perfumeries, food processing plants and breweries were confiscated and controlled by workmens's committees, either term possessing for the owners almost equal significance". He goes on "motion picture theatres and legitimate theatres, newspapers and printing, shops, department stores and hotels, de-lux restaurants and bars were likewise sequestered".

In each workplace the assembly of all the workers was the basic unit. Within the factory workers would elect delegates to represent them on day-to-day issues. Anything of overall importance had to go to the assembly. This would elect a committee of between five and fifteen worker, which would elect a manager to oversee the day-to-day running of the workplace. Within each industry there was an Industrial Council which had representatives of the two main unions (CNT and UGT) and representatives from the committees.

Within workplaces wages were equalised and conditions greatly improved. Take for example the tramways. Out of the 7,000 workers, 6,500 were members of the CNT. Street battles had brought all transport to a halt. The transport syndicate appointed a commission of seven to occupy the administrative offices while others inspected the tracks and drew up a plan of repair work that needed to be done. Five days after the fighting stopped, 700 tramcars, instead of the usual 600, all painted in the black and red colours of the CNT were operating on the streets of Barcelona.

With the profit motive gone, safety became more important and the number of accidents was reduced. Fares were lowered and services improved. In 1936, 183,543,516 passengers were carried. In 1937 this had gone up by 50 million. The trams were running so efficiently that the workers were able to give money to other sections of urban transport. Also, free medical care was provided for the work force.

In 1937 the central government admitted that the war industry of Catalonia produced ten times more than the rest of Spanish industry put together and that this output could have been quadrupled if Catalonia had the access to necessary means of purchasing raw materials.

Seeing Spain thrive under a model of Anarcho-Communism, we can see that this ideology cannot be considered Utopian by any means. The fact is, such an economic philosophy promotes profitability through equity, which allows the working class to avert exploitation, expropriation, and alienation unlike Capitalism which, while achieving profitability, does so through autocratic principles and the promotion of hierarchy which often leads to detriments on a humane level.

My final point in this opening argument will be that Capitalism, especially in tandem with the existence of the State, is unsustainable. To illustrate my point here was a study conducted by OxFam on wealth inequality:

Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population. The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population. The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world. Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years. In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95% of post financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.

These are the kind of statistics that generate under State Capitalism. With Anarcho-Socialism, financial capital will be stronger for the human capital that dictates it will be stronger. I will now allow Spiral Out to have the floor.

The Philosopher is a majestic and feral beast. Prowling Ivory halls only stalls hunger but never satiates it. The Philosopher must claim the jungle to truly find fulfillment.

Thank you for the time you have invested in order to construct your opening arguments. I appreciate your efforts.

However, I have a few concerns regarding the specifics of our debate.

While your opening arguments are very interesting, I'll admit that I am caught a bit off-guard as they are not quite what I was expecting. I was under the impression that we would be arguing the merits of the principles of the selected economic models themselves, not what the effect Human behaviors have on these particular economic models.

Also, I am unaware of any particular current example of an anarcho-socialist economic system in any current society. If there does exist an example, I would appreciate it if you could provide some information as to the specifics of this existent model. Conversely, if there is not any current example of the economic model you are arguing for then I would be at a bit of a disadvantage in that I cannot argue against a theoretical economic model while attempting to argue for an actual existing & real-life competing economic model.

I think it would be unreasonable, if not impossible, to argue for one economic model theoretically while arguing for the other economic model empirically.

In addition to those issues, I would also ask you to clarify the specific primary principles of anarcho-socialism. Is it a socialist subset of anarchism, or an anarchist subset of socialism? I'm assuming it's the latter as the former is more of a political movement than an economic model.

Also, are we speaking of the pure-form principles of these economic models, such as pure capitalism/pure socialism without considering the subsets of state capitalism, welfare capitalism, anarcho-capitalism, etc.? I understand that your arguments will be specific to anarcho-socialism as in that there would be no centralized governmental bureaucratic entity involved.

One of my main arguments, if we are indeed going to be discussing these economic models in terms of the effect that Human nature and behaviors have on them, will be the effect the conditions of the strong Human tendency toward greed and forming hierarchic structures would have on any particular economic model, and as you have provided examples to that effect in your opening arguments against capitalism, then you would need to show how these Human propensities would not have any effect on anarcho-socialism if indeed there is currently no existent example model. At that point we will have to debate on only the theoretical aspect of the principles of each model.

I am most interested in discussing these economic models on a 1:1 basis as long as they are both of the same existent and practical nature so that we can effectively engage in a fundamentally fair and equitable debate.

Okay after what feels like an eternity, I have returned to this debate to keep the wheels turning. Now, me and Spiral Out had our wires crossed in our respective openings of the debate as it pertains to what exactly we were debating about. After we conversed over it, we came to the consensus that we would be debating the ideals of each system separated entirely from human interpretation and application in a historical context. With that in mind, I want to begin with one of the core tenets of Anarcho-Socialism, the abolition of private property. As I did in my opening statement, I shall post an excerpt of an essay I wrote discussing the fallacies of private property.

I said the fallacies the Capitalist commits are that they impose their will upon land through privatization and take an object with no definitive teleological design and ascribe one to it thus occluding all other teleological designs and consequently, all other avenues of maximal utility the land was capable of producing. The teleological design the Capitalist imposes upon the land is the manufacturing of material goods which is seen to have achieved maximal utility when such goods reap a profit for the Capitalist. However, to achieve this end the Capitalist must also enforce this relationship between Teleology and Utility upon the worker. Like land, human beings have no definitive teleological design and thus are capable of many forms of maximal utility. The Capitalist however through the institution of wages and having control of the means of production, ascribes one definitive teleological design to the worker and that is to produce labor. The labor is at its maximal utility when it attains the output desired by the Capitalist. When we examine the consequences of teleological reasoning by the Capitalist within an economic context, we can see that what Marx said in his Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts is true. The capitalist does not care for the human being outside of his labor and affords him no moral consideration outside of this dimension. The worker sacrifices their mind and their body in the pursuit of capital. This pursuit often ends in death, starvation, or the worker being plummeted to the depths of beggary.

So we see as it relates to my essay that I see the phenomenon of privatization as one that happens in succession. First, it occurs to the land which then becomes property (The distinction being that land in itself has no definitive function where as property does.) and then it occurs to human beings where they become laborers subjected to alienation.

This brings me to the next tenet of Anarcho-Socialism and that is the empowerment of the worker compared to their exploitation as seen within Capitalism. One thing that I believe Karl Marx got right was when he discussed the occurence of alienation that the worker feels to his product when he is creating for someone else. In Marx's view, when man creates it is to serve as a vehicle of self discovery. Through the process of creation man discovers his capabilities, his knowledge, and his limitations. This gives the creator a sense of pride and growth. This is in stark contrast with when man creates for someone else for when that occurs, man is said to be reduced to an animal state. To quote Estranged Labor from the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts:

The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and size. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. The devaluation of the world of men is in direct proportion to the increasing value of the world of things. Labor produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity – and this at the same rate at which it produces commodities in general.

This fact expresses merely that the object which labor produces – labor’s product – confronts it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer. The product of labor is labor which has been embodied in an object, which has become material: it is the objectification of labor. Labor’s realization is its objectification. Under these economic conditions this realization of labor appears as loss of realization for the workers[18]; objectification as loss of the object and bondage to it; appropriation as estrangement, as alienation.[19]

So much does the labor’s realization appear as loss of realization that the worker loses realization to the point of starving to death. So much does objectification appear as loss of the object that the worker is robbed of the objects most necessary not only for his life but for his work. Indeed, labor itself becomes an object which he can obtain only with the greatest effort and with the most irregular interruptions. So much does the appropriation of the object appear as estrangement that the more objects the worker produces the less he can possess and the more he falls under the sway of his product, capital.

All these consequences are implied in the statement that the worker is related to the product of labor as to an alien object. For on this premise it is clear that the more the worker spends himself, the more powerful becomes the alien world of objects which he creates over and against himself, the poorer he himself – his inner world – becomes, the less belongs to him as his own. It is the same in religion. The more man puts into God, the less he retains in himself. The worker puts his life into the object; but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object. Hence, the greater this activity, the more the worker lacks objects. Whatever the product of his labor is, he is not. Therefore, the greater this product, the less is he himself. The alienation of the worker in his product means not only that his labor becomes an object, an external existence, but that it exists outside him, independently, as something alien to him, and that it becomes a power on its own confronting him. It means that the life which he has conferred on the object confronts him as something hostile and alien.

In an Anarcho-Socialist society, man's nature of creation not only goes unsullied, it is the core of the economy itself. For workers are entitled to 100% of their work product contingent on it being entirely of their own making. Kropotkin said it best when he said quote:

“when we see a Sheffield cutler, or a Leeds clothier working with their own tools or handloom, we see no use in taking the tools or the handloom to give to another worker. The clothier or cutler exploit nobody. But when we see a factory whose owners claim to keep to themselves the instruments of labour used by 1,400 girls, and consequently exact from the labour of these girls …profit…we consider that the people …are fully entitled to take possession of that factory and to let the girls produce . . . for themselves and the rest of the community …and take what they need of house room, food and clothing in return.“

This quote provides the seamless transition to the final tenet of Anarcho-Socialism that I want to discuss which is collectivism. Collectivism is:

a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control 2 : emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

Anarcho-Socialists believe that workers should have control of the means of production so as to be able to produce goods for themselves and the whole of their community.

In the end, Anarcho-Socialism not only restores man to his natural state as a worker being an extension of himself rather than a reduction, it also increases the sense of community thanks to collectivization and the absence of the state. I hope this is the opening statement Spiral was looking for.

The Philosopher is a majestic and feral beast. Prowling Ivory halls only stalls hunger but never satiates it. The Philosopher must claim the jungle to truly find fulfillment.

My apologies for the delay in responding. I am currently constructing an overall argument structure that will address all key points and fundamental properties of the economic models we will be debating.

In the meantime, I have some questions I wish to ask in regard to some of the basic attributes required for the success of any economic model.

In regard to Anarcho-Socialism (ASOC) and in contrast to Capitalism (CAP), I have an assortment of specific questions.

They are as follows:

1. MOTIVATION: What are the fundamental reasons that would compel one to choose and participate in ASOC as opposed to CAP?

2. FUNCTION: What are the specific unique functions the participants of ASOC serve that would be considered superior to those of CAP?

4. CONTRIBUTION: How does ASOC address the inequalities of people in regard to their physical and intellectual capabilities and their ability and/or willingness to contribute to a system such as ASOC? How does ASOC assign and enforce responsibility to those who do not contribute, or who contribute less than their fair share?

5. COOPERATION: How does ASOC address the problems inherent to differences of opinion and the absence of markets as to what should be produced and how to effectively and efficiently utilize those products, and also to bring the methods and goals of the system in line with available technologies and resources in order to effect sustainable and purposeful production?

6. REGULATION: How does ASOC address the issue of public protections and rights in regard to labor laws, legal accountability and product safety, effectiveness and utility in the absence of any governmental regulating agencies?

7. VALUATION: In the absence of competitive markets, how does ASOC address the issue of establishing a specific value associated to any particular products, services and labor, either in a bartering system or any other material exchange?

8. COMPETITION: How would ASOC achieve any substantive growth in the absence of the direct competition that is exhibited in capitalist markets?

9. INNOVATION: What does ASOC provide as an initiative or incentive for the progressive evolution of technologies, social policies and principles and also of the general evolution of socio-economic systems?

To address the abolition of private property which you have suggested is one of the primary principles of ASOC, I would like to propose the example of a simple farm.

If a family owns a farm, either large or small that provides only enough for the needs of the family then the farm falls under the classification of personal property. Presumably, the size and scope of such a farm would not really matter as long as it is not being used for personal profit or other material gain. Also, unused potentially productive land may perhaps be at issue however, and I have addressed that below.

Now, if the farm produces a heavy surplus of products perhaps due to opportune environmental conditions or due to other conditions that are beyond the control of the farmers, and if the farmers decide to sell their surplus for monetary gain or any other material gain, either due to the inability to properly store the surplus for future personal use or for the specific purposes of monetary gain or any other material gain, then the farm falls under the classification of private property by the principles of ASOC and would be prohibited.

Does this indicate that ASOC would be a socio-economic system that would mandate the wasteful destruction of useable product that cannot otherwise be stored for future use, or would require the family to give away their product, and thus their labor for free, essentially mandating a type of slavery to the system?

So then what if the farm was not able to produce enough product to provide for the family due to unfavorable environmental conditions or other hardships such as poor health or scarcity of resources? Would there be some form of welfare system associated with ASOC that would be available to help the farm family in such conditions?

Would others be required to give away their products and labor for free in order to help support the family in times of hardship, even though the farm family has the potential to provide surplus? If there would be some type of offset trade system then we would run into the valuation problem of products/services/labor for the purposes of an equitable exchange. Where would the resources for such a welfare system come from?

Also, is any area of land (on a very large farm for example) that is not in productive use, subject to compulsory dictates of functional and productive usage by those willing and obligated by the ASOC model to use such lands for any such assumed teleological purpose, and by requirement of such dictates, subject to forfeiture by the owner of such personal property?

Another key point is that of those who would take advantage of any specific system through less-than-honorable intents and actions. Theft via non-contribution (aka "freeloading") would be a major issue within any socialist system. How does a socialist system, especially an anarchy-socialist system, prevent such an issue?

Thank you for entertaining my questions. I expect that your answers to these questions will set the basic direction for the rest of our debate.

Please forgive any further delays in my responses as I have been quite busy with work due to the recent weather as well as other personal circumstances.

Okay, after being intimidated by this post for so long (Seriously Spiral, what a right hook.) I am ready to respond. Now, I am going to respond to each point meticulously so as not to make any mistakes. When you're as intelligent as my opponent here, even one is enough. I'm going to work backwards starting with your example of the farm.

Your questions were as follows:

Now, if the farm produces a heavy surplus of products perhaps due to opportune environmental conditions or due to other conditions that are beyond the control of the farmers, and if the farmers decide to sell their surplus for monetary gain or any other material gain, either due to the inability to properly store the surplus for future personal use or for the specific purposes of monetary gain or any other material gain, then the farm falls under the classification of private property by the principles of ASOC and would be prohibited.

Does this indicate that ASOC would be a socio-economic system that would mandate the wasteful destruction of useable product that cannot otherwise be stored for future use, or would require the family to give away their product, and thus their labor for free, essentially mandating a type of slavery to the system?

To answer this question I am going to cite an Anarchist essay that references Peter Kropotkin, who offered this insight on a factory sustained by privatization and examined the relationship between the owner and the worker:

harmony [is] obtained… by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.

He would also go on to say which the essayist frames nicely:

the complete expropriation of all those who have the means of exploiting human beings”[7] That is to say “everything that enables any man — be he financier, mill-owner, or landlord — to appropriate the product of others’ toil.”[8] Thus an Anarchist revolution “would take care not to touch the holding of the peasant who cultivates it himself …without wage labour. But we would expropriate all land that was not cultivated by the hands of those who at present possess the land.”

Put more succinctly:

When we see a Sheffield cutler, or a Leeds clothier working with their own tools or handloom, we see no use in taking the tools or the handloom to give to another worker. The clothier or cutler exploit nobody. But when we see a factory whose owners claim to keep to themselves the instruments of labour used by 1,400 girls, and consequently exact from the labour of these girls …profit…we consider that the people …are fully entitled to take possession of that factory and to let the girls produce . . . for themselves and the rest of the community …and take what they need of house room, food and clothing in return.

Source: anarchopac.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/vol ... opriation/
So you see Spiral, private property only truly becomes abolished in an Anarcho-Socialist society when exploitation occurs. A point that I perhaps did not put enough emphasis on initially and for that I apologize. Because of this, the family owning the farm would keep their product and their property because the crops were of their own labor. Now, if they had utilized slave labor to yield their crops, then the property would be considered a foundation to further exploitation and thus it would be abolished.

So then what if the farm was not able to produce enough product to provide for the family due to unfavorable environmental conditions or other hardships such as poor health or scarcity of resources? Would there be some form of welfare system associated with ASOC that would be available to help the farm family in such conditions?

Would others be required to give away their products and labor for free in order to help support the family in times of hardship, even though the farm family has the potential to provide surplus? If there would be some type of offset trade system then we would run into the valuation problem of products/services/labor for the purposes of an equitable exchange. Where would the resources for such a welfare system come from?

There would be no requirement per say but it would certainly be encouraged. Members of an Anarchist society would have their feelings of compassion, altruism, empathy, etc. in full force (More on this later) so there would be no need to hold them at gunpoint. It must be remembered that one of the core maxims of an Anarchist society is from each according to their ability to each according to their need. Anarchism emphasizes community above all things and as long as the needs of everyone in the society is met, things such as valuations and equitable exchanges become moot. As for the welfare system, I'd say if there could exist such an institution created for that purpose if willed by the collective consciousness of the society but otherwise, I would personally deem the community in its entirety as a breathing welfare system.

Also, is any area of land (on a very large farm for example) that is not in productive use, subject to compulsory dictates of functional and productive usage by those willing and obligated by the ASOC model to use such lands for any such assumed teleological purpose, and by requirement of such dictates, subject to forfeiture by the owner of such personal property?

Another key point is that of those who would take advantage of any specific system through less-than-honorable intents and actions. Theft via non-contribution (aka "freeloading") would be a major issue within any socialist system. How does a socialist system, especially an anarchy-socialist system, prevent such an issue?

Okay first let us devote more examination to your terminology of personal property. Infoshop.org gives a great distinction between private and personal property that I will now invoke:

Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to control and exploit others. "Possession," on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used.

To summarise, anarchists are in favour of the kind of property which "cannot be used to exploit another -- those kinds of personal possessions which we accumulate from childhood and which become part of our lives." We are opposed to the kind of property "which can be used only to exploit people -- land and buildings, instruments of production and distribution, raw materials and manufactured articles, money and capital." [Nicholas Walter, About Anarchism, p. 40] As a rule of thumb, anarchists oppose those forms of property which are owned by a few people but which are used by others. This leads to the former controlling the latter and using them to produce a surplus for them (either directly, as in the case of a employee, or indirectly, in the case of a tenant).

The key is that "possession" is rooted in the concept of "use rights" or "usufruct" while "private property" is rooted in a divorce between the users and ownership. For example, a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one's own profit, it is property. Needless to say, a capitalist workplace, where the workers are ordered about by a boss, is an example of "property" while a co-operative, where the workers manage their own work, is an example of "possession." To quote Proudhon:

"The proprietor is a man who, having absolute control of an instrument of production, claims the right to enjoy the product of the instrument without using it himself. To this end he lends it." [Op. Cit., p. 293]
While it may initially be confusing to make this distinction, it is very useful to understand the nature of capitalist society. Capitalists tend to use the word "property" to mean anything from a toothbrush to a transnational corporation -- two very different things, with very different impacts upon society. Hence Proudhon:

"Originally the word property was synonymous with proper or individual possession. It designated each individual's special right to the use of a thing. But when this right of use . . . became active and paramount -- that is, when the usufructuary converted his right to personally use the thing into the right to use it by his neighbour's labour -- then property changed its nature and this idea became complex." [Op. Cit., pp. 395-6]

So you see Spiral, the farm is fine in an ANSOC society on all fronts. The family is all in agreement to cultivate the product and distribute it accordingly. Furthermore, a piece of property is only "unproductive" in accordance with an ANSOC society if exploitation occurs. But then again, if that were to occur then it would be private property and not the personal property you spoke of. If personal property were to work in the way most people probably envision it working in an ANSOC society, then a man would have to give everyone in the community a ride to work with his car. Clearly this is an absurd notion and not something you would see in such a society.

Now let us shift to your question of theft in an Anarchist society. This is an excellent time to discuss the nature of crime in an Anarchist society. I will begin by framing what exactly crime is in an Anarchist society and progress towards the solution,

So what is crime exactly?

Crime is any action which would deprive someone of equal access to these things. An Anarchist society recognizes only three types of crime: (1) Chauvinistic Crimes, (2) Economic Crimes, and (3) Violent Crimes. Chauvinistic Crimes are those actions that deprive us of freedom or the fruits of our labor because of social prejudices, religious dogma, or personal malice or animosity. Economic crimes are those that deprive us of the fruits of our labor by theft, fraud, or vandalism. Violent crimes are those that deprive us of our life, freedom, or the fruits of our labor through deadly force, physical abuse, or coercion.

Anarchists believe that most crime is a product of social deprivations, inequalities, and abuses inherent to Authoritarian, Capitalistic, and Chauvinistic socioeconomic systems. By doing away with these systems we can begin to do away with the problems they create. But, there will still be people who want to exploit and victimize others for their own personal satisfaction as well as some reactionaries who want to establish a new system of domination, exploitation, and social control. To deal with these criminal personalities a society must be able to segregate them from the general population so they cannot harm anyone.

Too often the term justice has been abused to imply retribution, punishment, correction or other forms of coercion or social control. Anarchists believe that the only true justice lies in personal freedom. In a free society the need is to protect the society from crime without obstructing freedom of choice. Anarchists are not interested in vengeance, only peace. Therefore, our goal is to insure social peace by segregating those who threaten it rather than debating and imposing an arbitrary view of justice based upon the whims and ambitions of parliamentarians, bureaucrats, and autocratic jurists.

So you spoke specifically of the crime of theft earlier, so the question becomes how would that be dealt with? The answer to that is an Anarchist society would banish said criminal from the society either forever or until appropriate restitution can be made.

In an Anarchist society there is no punishment for crime, only social remedies. The only social remedy for an economic crime is 100% restitution. This means that a person’s possessions which can be bartered are forfeit and they may be asked to do labor if this is not enough to correct for what they have damaged or stolen. It is not necessary for a person to be incarcerated to provide restitution or remedial labor. Incarceration of nonviolent criminals only creates violent criminals. Their alternative, if they chose, is banishment from the community until such time as they chose to provide full restitution. Anarchists believe in free association which means that you can associate with whomever you chose but, cannot be forced into an association against your will. Free association means that the community has the right to expel undesirable individuals who threaten the community or refuse to meet their personal responsibility to make amends for their criminal actions. In a modern society where the person cannot be released into other communities without putting them at risk, banishment must mean incarceration for a non-negotiable period of time dependent on the severity of their crime if full restitution is beyond their ability to pay through voluntary work. Again, this is unlikely since Anarchist societies do not produce large concentrations of wealth like stocks and bonds that are worth more than a person could possibly earn by honest labor.

Anarchist societies have little violent crime because there is no underground economy, poverty, or social injustice to breed violent behavior. Most conflicts are settled by arbitration and mediation without violence and rowdiness is moderated by mutual aid. People are able to channel their aggressive feelings into constructive activities like athletics if they chose. All that remains are crimes of passion and predatory behavior. No society can hope to prevent either one of these so we must be prepared to deal with these problems when they arise.

Since Anarchist societies provide free counseling, arbitration, and mediation, we must accept that most crimes of passion would result where a person refused to deal with a problem before it got out of hand. All persons must be held responsible for their actions regardless of their mental state if the safety of the society is to be maintained. Crimes of passion must therefore be treated like any other violent crime based onthe severity of their criminal actions. The only appropriate social correction for violent crime is banishment because violence must be segregated from society in order for the people in the community to live peacefully. Economic criminals who reject the judgement of their society do not have the right to live in it and must be banished. Likewise, those who act violently against other members of society do not wish to live peacefully and cooperatively as a part of the society. They place themselves above the good of the community and do not have the right to live in it. As with economic crime, banishment must mean incarceration.

In an Anarchist society everyone has freedom of choice. Crime istherefore a choice. We do not dictate how each person should live but, we must recognize that an injury to one is an injury to all. There can be no tolerance of one of our community members being hurt by another person without the rest of us being threatened. Social peace is an essential element of an Anarchist society because the only function of violence and predatory behavior is to institute slavery, injustice, and exploitation. Those who do not respect the social peace should not be a part of the community. Without this assurance, no society of free individuals can exist. By creating a free society we reject the idea that we need to subject our behavior to an outside authority; that we need someone else to take care of us and to tell us what to do. We discard the coercion of the old police state and its illusion of order which leaves no one but the members of the community itself to assume responsibility for their own lives. If we fail in our responsibility to protect the social peace, people will be hurt and subjected to the coercive force of violence which is the foundation of all autocratic, fascist, and feudal tyranny. This understanding must be instilled in the youngest members of the community, enforced equally by all members of the community, and applied equally to all members of the community regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or lifestyle.

Now that I have addressed your farm example at length I can now turn my attention towards the nine bullet inquiries you posed at the start.

MOTIVATION: What are the fundamental reasons that would compel one to choose and participate in ASOC as opposed to CAP?

Answer: The motivation is unfettered liberty and a society that sees equality genuinely permeated throughout it. the fact is, Capitalism promotes hierarchy, which promotes exploitation, which all goes towards the final cause of smothering freedom. The fact is, Capitalism much like what we're seeing with the current political paradigm, is all about the consolidation of power. Noam Chomsky said it best:

"Corporations are totalitarian institutions. Board of directors at the top of managers give orders, everyone follows orders….. At the very bottom of command, if you are lucky you can rent yourself to it and get a job , and if you are sufficiently propagandized you may even buy some of the junk they produce and so on…"

Marx believes that when man creates, it is a product of self discovery. Say for instance Spiral, you created a pair of glasses. During that process, you discover your capabilities, your limitations, and ultimately, the pair of glasses you create is on a certain level a reflection of you. In a Capitalism system, you're creating for someone else and thus your very labor becomes alien to you. The restoration of man's labor to himself is true freedom.

FUNCTION: What are the specific unique functions the participants of ASOC serve that would be considered superior to those of CAP?

The highest function of any participant in an ANSOC society is the preservation of freedom of other members and the contribution to the fulfillment of the needs for other members of that society however possible. Anarchy is true order and participants highest aim is maintaining that order.

First, let us clear up a few misconceptions about human nature. You first speak of greed as a human propensity Spiral however, A study conducted by the University of Wisconsin showed that people who engage in altruism are happier than those who don't.

the study tests the relationship between altruism in the workplace and happiness in two ways. First, using the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study of more than 10,000 1957 Wisconsin high school graduates, the authors find that individuals in their mid-30s who rated helping others in their work as important said they were happier with their life when surveyed again almost 30 years later.

The authors tested the same model using the General Social Survey and found similar links among the desire to help others and work and current happiness. The General Social Survey is a national data-collection program that conducts basic scientific research on the structure and development of American society.

"It's exciting that in both tests, our measures of altruism had relatively large effects on happiness," Moynihan says. "Being motivated to help and believing your work makes a difference is associated with greater happiness in our analysis."

Furthermore, the Association for Psychological Science conducted a study that shows altruism leads to more altruism.

Seeing someone perform a virtuous deed (especially if they are helping another person), makes us feel good, often eliciting a warm, fuzzy feeling in our chest. This positive, uplifting emotion, known as “elevation,” might make us feel great, but is it enough to get us to go out and perform good acts ourselves? According to new findings reported in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, the answer may be yes.

Psychological scientists Simone Schnall from the University of Cambridge, Jean Roper from the University of Plymouth, and Daniel M.T. Fessler from the University of California, Los Angeles, wanted to investigate the influence of elevation on behavior. Volunteers viewed either a neutral TV clip (showing scenes from a nature documentary) or an uplifting TV clip (a segment from “The Oprah Winfrey Show” showing musicians thanking their mentors) that was designed to induce feelings of elevation and then wrote an essay describing what they watched. As they received their payment and a receipt, they were to indicate if they would be willing to participate in an additional study.

The results revealed that participants who watched the uplifting TV clip were more likely to volunteer for another research study than volunteers who saw the neutral TV clip, suggesting that elevation may make us more willing to help others. However, anybody can say they will volunteer for a subsequent study or would be willing to help another person. The researchers wanted to see if elevation can result in actual helping behavior.

In the next experiment, a different set of volunteers watched one of three TV clips: the neutral TV clip or the uplifting TV clip used previously, or a clip from a British comedy, intended to induce mirth. After they viewed the TV clip, the research assistant conducting the study pretended to have problems opening up a computer file that was required for the experiment. She told the volunteers that they were free to leave but as they were leaving, she asked them if they would be willing to complete a questionnaire for another study (unbeknownst to the volunteers, the actual experiment was measuring whether or not they helped with the additional study). The researcher noted the questionnaire was boring and that the volunteers could leave whenever they wanted.

The results of this second experiment were striking — the participants who viewed the uplifting TV clip spent almost twice as long helping the research assistant than participants who saw the neutral TV clip or the comedy clip, indicating that elevation may lead to helping behavior.

The authors conclude that “by eliciting elevation, even brief exposure to other individuals’ prosocial behavior motivates altruism, thus potentially providing an avenue for increasing the general level of prosociality in society."

Still, to answer your question about theft and laziness, for theft the answer is either the thief makes restitution or he faces expulsion from the Anarchist society since such a society does not appear to my understanding to endorse the prison system. As far as laziness it is difficult to say how such a situation would be handled in an Anarchist society. My guess is the members of that society would reach out to that person and try and figure out the source of that laziness and try and remedy it. If the laziness got to a point where it would prove to be a detriment to the society, I assume he would face suspension from the community.

CONTRIBUTION: How does ASOC address the inequalities of people in regard to their physical and intellectual capabilities and their ability and/or willingness to contribute to a system such as ASOC? How does ASOC assign and enforce responsibility to those who do not contribute, or who contribute less than their fair share?

I don't believe there exists much literature from Anarchists on the relationship between the handicapped and Anarchist societies. That said I could only assume that because this section of the population would be in greater need, than the expectation would be for those close with the individuals in question to work in tandem with the community so that the needs of the disabled. Responsibility is assigned according to ability. As such, it would entail that a heart surgeon would have more responsibility than the garbage man, especially because the former will be fulfilling more profound means than the latter. If one perfectly capable person is not maximizing their abilities I can only speculate that enforcement would lie either in ensuring the subject in question makes restitution, or the subject is temporarily suspended from the community and its benefits.

REGULATION: How does ASOC address the issue of public protections and rights in regard to labor laws, legal accountability and product safety, effectiveness and utility in the absence of any governmental regulating agencies?

I believe there would be a community consciousness to this issue. Since the workers collectively own the means of production it would have to come down to a matter of trust that they would handle the responsibility of overseeing such things. Controlling the means of production is one of the core tenets of Anarchism so if they could not exert responsibility over the means of production, Anarchism would ultimately fail.

VALUATION: In the absence of competitive markets, how does ASOC address the issue of establishing a specific value associated to any particular products, services and labor, either in a bartering system or any other material exchange?

1. Collectivist Anarchism- Bakunin asserted that the distribution of goods is determined based on the amount of labor contributed

2. Peter Kropotkin and Errico Malatesta espoused a gift based economy where distribution was in accordance with need.

As it currently stands, I side more with Bakunin on this issue. To me, labor contribution is more empirically verifiable than need (I am not saying that all cases of need cannot have empirical judgments derived from them, just that I feel labor contribution makes an easier time of it.). Because of this, it makes the final calculation of distribution easier.

COMPETITION: How would ASOC achieve any substantive growth in the absence of the direct competition that is exhibited in capitalist markets?

The funny thing is, I actually believe competition hinders overall progress. In an Anarchist society, the ideals of what constitutes growth would more than likely be homogeneous within the community. As such, all of the resources both human and natural would be directed and cultivated toward those ideals. Anarchism is about freedom. With nothing fettering that freedom, that feeds the motivation of the people to exercise it for good which makes the growth potential strong.

INNOVATION: What does ASOC provide as an initiative or incentive for the progressive evolution of technologies, social policies and principles and also of the general evolution of socio-economic systems?

I think the free society in itself is the incentive. The fact that Anarchism is still perceived as a failed political theory would drive a society that abides by such an ideology to be as innovative and on the cutting edge of everything as any Capitalist society. Also, Anarchists are very big on automation. According to this article: http://www.strikemag.org/********-jobs/ even Keynes predicted that with the trajectory technological advancements were on that we would be able to achieve a fifteen hour work week in places like the U.S. and Great Britain. Unfortunately, In the U.S., 85.8 percent of males and 66.5 percent of females work more than 40 hours per week.

In an Anarchist society, we view hard work, a phrase that is supposed to instill motivation and the process of it virtue, to be utterly backwards. We want our work to be easy so we can spend more time strengthening our families, our communities, and every facet that exists within our being. As far as the evolution of policies and systems, An Anarchist society is one that responds to need first and foremost. Any evolution in the system or in certain policies would be due to a need that has arisen in the society. Since Anarchism stresses the value of community, the needs and reforms in such things would be entirely communal in nature.

I can't believe I finally finished a response to this. The debate actually lives! Trust me, with how long I took with this, you may take as long as you like.

The Philosopher is a majestic and feral beast. Prowling Ivory halls only stalls hunger but never satiates it. The Philosopher must claim the jungle to truly find fulfillment.

Well my friend, I am only thankful points in this debate are not allocated based upon the timeliness of response. If it were, I'd be so far in the red one would hardly be able to call this a debate after such a time. As to your question of exploitation, I would personally frame it as the utilization of someone's productivity/labor void of appropriate compensation. Kropotkin gives the following example that I believe frames it beautifully:

When we see a Sheffield cutler, or a Leeds clothier working with their own tools or handloom, we see no use in taking the tools or the handloom to give to another worker. The clothier or cutler exploit nobody. But when we see a factory whose owners claim to keep to themselves the instruments of labour used by 1,400 girls, and consequently exact from the labour of these girls …profit…we consider that the people …are fully entitled to take possession of that factory and to let the girls produce . . . for themselves and the rest of the community …and take what they need of house room, food and clothing in return.

So we can see, that if these girls worked in the factory for the profit of another person and only received a minimum wage, we can say that exploitation is taking place. However,If the women were in control of the factory and produced sufficiently for themselves and the community, we can see that exploitation is not a crisis. Because they as well as the community at large are being adequately accommodated for their labor and are maintaining their autonomy and dignity. If a man is working in a factory and earning such a wage or working such exhaustive hours that he cannot even maintain a decent standard of living financially or socially, I contend that man is being exploited. As far as the inquiry of equality is concerned, while there will obviously always exist certain physical/intellectual inequality between persons in a given society, those inequalities should not be permitted to lend themselves towards the establishment of a hierarchy within that very same society. This is what I personally believe the ideal Anarchist society is. It is one that recognizes such inequalities but never allows them to transgress the boundaries of mutual cooperation into an established hierarchy where exploitation can occur.

The Philosopher is a majestic and feral beast. Prowling Ivory halls only stalls hunger but never satiates it. The Philosopher must claim the jungle to truly find fulfillment.

My apologies for taking so long to reply. Political and economic philosophy are outside of my usual genres.

Thank you for providing your thoughts on the concepts of exploitation and equality. I think these two concepts are typically the critical aspects of the arguments most commonly posed in this type of debate.

I will be focusing on these two concepts of exploitation and equality specifically because you've used them as the focal point, along with the concept of private property (which you've linked directly to the concept of exploitation as quoted below), and as the main charges in the theme for your arguments against Capitalism, and because of the common usage in general of these concepts as charges against Capitalism.

FerrumIntellectus wrote:[…] private property only truly becomes abolished in an Anarcho-Socialist society when exploitation occurs. A point that I perhaps did not put enough emphasis on initially and for that I apologize. Because of this, the family owning the farm would keep their product and their property because the crops were of their own labor. Now, if they had utilized slave labor to yield their crops, then the property would be considered a foundation to further exploitation and thus it would be abolished.

I think the concepts of exploitation and equality are ones that we generally envision as being fairly concrete and well-defined.

However, when we closely scrutinize these concepts we find that they are entirely subjective in nature, and being that our definitions usually contain subjective terms in themselves, unless we take these concepts to their extreme conditions where the true presence of these conditions become obvious, they are inherently lost in a fuzzy haze of uncertainty.

Now, I'm not trying to obscure these concepts, or our debate, in the semantics of the terms and concepts we use to make our points, but when they are the foundation of our arguments then we have to get a bit more detailed with our definitions.

The Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language defines exploitation thusly: Exploitationn.1. use or utilization, esp. for profit. 2. selfish utilization. 3. the combined, often varied, use of public-relations and advertising techniques to promote a person, movie, product, etc.

I think that this definition of exploitation is entirely unsatisfactory for the purposes or our debate because it is far too vague.

So then what is "profit"?

The Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language defines profit thusly: Profit n.1.a. pecuniary (monetary) gain resulting from the employment of capital in any transaction. b. the ratio of such pecuniary gain to the amount of capital invested. c. returns, proceeds, or revenue, as from property or investments. 2. the monetary surplus left to a producer or employer after deducting wages, rent, cost of raw materials, etc.

Profit itself, by the definition above, does not appear to be necessarily a negative thing in itself. Stripped of its negative connotation when associated with Capitalism, and if we were to substitute some of the associated terms with more basic terminology, profit is apparently a natural and long-standing Human pursuit.

After all, aside from charitable activities, what Human endeavors do we not seek to profit from, at least in some manner?

If we consider closely the Anarcho-Socialist economic system of the exchange of labor for goods and services, instead of paper or coinage currency, we will begin to note that the system is fundamentally identical in its architecture. The only thing that changes is the subjective perception of the exploitation and equality that I will be outlining in my post.

One important question that comes to mind is: Is it more fair to rely directly on others, given the nature of Human interpersonal relationships, for our needs? This question is in relation to the Anarcho-Socialist maxim that

For reference, the Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language defines Capitalism thusly: Capitalismn.1. an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted by to cooperatively or state-owned means of of wealth.

Note that the definition of Capitalism mentions nothing of profit.

The typical use of the charge of exploitation against Capitalism is problematic for the Anarcho-Socialist in that there can be no universal agreement, except in extreme cases and where such cases don't exist in modern Capitalist societies, at what point compensation for labor provided can be said to fit the definition of exploitation.

FerrumIntellectus wrote:As to your question of exploitation, I would personally frame it as the utilization of someone's productivity/labor void of appropriate compensation.

Thank you for this definition of exploitation. As previously stated, the definitions of such concepts tend to contain terminology that is entirely subjective.

You have defined exploitation as being the utilization of one's labor without appropriate compensation. Now we must determine what is "appropriate" in any and all situations. That is an impractical, if not impossible task.

FerrumIntellectus wrote:As far as the inquiry of equality is concerned, while there will obviously always exist certain physical/intellectual inequality between persons in a given society, those inequalities should not be permitted to lend themselves towards the establishment of a hierarchy within that very same society.

Humans will invariably form hierarchies in pursuit of streamlining task delegation, resource allocation and product prioritization in the name of economizing time and resources. There are no systems where hierachies of one type or another are not involved.

FerrumIntellectus wrote:In an Anarcho-Socialist society, man's nature of creation not only goes unsullied, it is the core of the economy itself. For workers are entitled to 100% of their work product contingent on it being entirely of their own making.

That would mean that the unskilled must go without, or they would have to barter for their needs with whatever they had to offer in trade, if anything at all. Without a specific device to address the issue of skill inequality the Anarcho-Socialist society would seem to quickly revert back to a Capitalist society with a considerable welfare component.

In the Anarcho-Socialist society, what of the person, or family, that can provide completely for themselves? Are they obligated to produce for others or can they isolate themselves in self-sustaining harmony?

Perhaps I struggle to understand the Anarcho-Socialist system in its purest form but it seems a system that would be unable to maintain its own fundamental principles and values for very long.